Resolving Business Closure Disputes Effectively

A company that has stopped trading has not stopped existing. Its licence still has to be cancelled, its employees still have entitlements, its lease still runs, its bank account is still in someone’s name, and its registration with the tax authority is still live. Most business closure disputes are the consequence of treating the commercial decision to stop as if it were the legal act of closing. By the time the shareholders start arguing, the company has usually been sitting unclosed for some time, and the position has become more expensive than the business was worth.

Closure is a sequence, and each step generates its own argument

Winding up a UAE company follows a defined order, whether the entity is on the mainland under Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021 on Commercial Companies, in a commercial free zone under that zone’s regulations, or in the DIFC or ADGM under their own companies statutes. The sequence looks broadly like this:

1. a shareholders’ resolution to dissolve the company and appoint a liquidator, in the form the constitutional documents require;
2. notice to creditors, with a period in which claims can be presented;
3. termination of employees, settlement of their end-of-service entitlements and cancellation of their visas and the establishment’s labour file;
4. settlement or assignment of contracts — the lease, supply agreements, licences and any personal or parent guarantees behind them;
5. realisation of assets, payment of creditors in order, and distribution of anything left to shareholders;
6. the liquidator’s final report, clearance from the relevant authorities and utilities, closure of bank accounts, and cancellation of the trade licence and registrations.

A dispute can attach to any of these. The resolution is challenged as improperly passed. The liquidator’s valuation of an asset is rejected. A creditor says it was never notified. A shareholder says the distribution was calculated wrongly. Because the steps are sequential, an argument at step one stops everything after it, and the company continues to accrue obligations while the argument runs.

When the shareholders cannot agree to close at all

The hardest closures are the ones where one side wants out and the other does not. What determines the outcome is almost never the merits of the commercial argument. It is what the memorandum of association and any shareholders’ agreement say about the majority needed to dissolve, about deadlock, about transferring shares and about how those shares are valued.

Where those documents are silent, the options narrow to negotiation or an application to the competent court or registrar for dissolution, which is slower and public. Where the documents are drafted properly, the exit is mechanical. The memorandum states what majority a dissolution needs and whether one holder can force it. There is a route by which one side buys the other out instead of liquidating, an independent basis for pricing that holding, and an answer to who bears the cost of obtaining it. There is also a rule for what happens if a shareholder simply declines to sign what the liquidation requires, which is where most of these arguments actually bite. Reviewing these provisions is a job for the calm period. Our contract and document review work is frequently instructed at precisely the wrong moment, once the disagreement is already in writing.

Legacy structures produce their own version of this problem. Where a mainland company was set up before Federal Decree-Law No. 26 of 2020 removed the requirement for majority UAE-national ownership, the person named on the register may not be the person the other shareholders treat as the owner. Liquidation forces that to be settled: the resolution to dissolve has to be passed by whoever the register says holds the shares, the liquidator pays out to the same people, and anyone asserting a beneficial interest has to establish it before the money moves rather than afterwards.

Creditors, landlords and employees do not wait

Three groups of claimants tend to surface at once, and their claims rank differently.

Employees come first in practical terms: entitlements under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, which replaced Federal Law No. 8 of 1980, have to be settled, and the labour and immigration files cannot be closed until they are. Attempting to close a company around unpaid staff does not work, because the clearances required at the end of the process depend on those files being clean.

Landlords hold a contract that usually runs past the closure date and often a cheque or guarantee to support it. Early termination is a negotiation, and it is easier while the company still has cash than after distribution.

Trade creditors are entitled to notice and to present claims. A liquidator who distributes to shareholders while a notified claim is outstanding creates a problem for the shareholders who received the money. Commercial dealings between the company and its creditors sit under Federal Decree-Law No. 50 of 2022 on Commercial Transactions, which replaced Federal Law No. 18 of 1993, and the terms of the underlying contracts govern what is actually owed.

What survives cancellation

Closing the licence does not close everything. Personal and parent-company guarantees survive the entity that they supported. Managers and directors can be answerable for conduct during the company’s life, including decisions taken once it was clear the company could not pay. Tax registrations must be closed out properly rather than abandoned: corporate tax under Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022 applies to financial years starting on or after 1 June 2023, at 0% up to AED 375,000 of taxable income and 9% above, and any open period remains open until it is dealt with. Records for the financial years 2019 to 2022 still matter for the Economic Substance Regulations, which were cancelled for financial years ending after 31 December 2022 by Cabinet Decision No. 98 of 2024 but continue to apply to those earlier years.

The alternative that is often overlooked is not closing at all. Where the licence still has value, or where the intention is to restart in a different form, a sale of the shares, a change of activity or a move to a different jurisdiction may be cheaper and cleaner than liquidation followed by a fresh company set-up.

Where closures break down

Contested closures tend to fail at one of a few identifiable points. The resolution to dissolve is passed without checking what the constitutional documents require of it, so everything built on that resolution can be challenged afterwards. The liquidator is appointed without a written scope, and the argument then becomes what the appointment covered. The employment file is left open while assets are realised, and the clearances at the end of the process cannot be obtained until it is closed. Creditors are not notified in a way anyone can later evidence. Shareholders are paid while a notified claim is still outstanding, which turns the company’s problem into the recipients’ problem. An objecting shareholder is the case where timing counts for most: the objection is far easier to deal with while the entity still exists than after its licence has been cancelled.

Related services: we advise on the business closure and liquidation process, and our corporate lawyers act for shareholders, managers and creditors in disputes arising from it.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek professional legal advice tailored to their specific circumstances before making any decisions or taking any action based on the content of this article.

Nour Attorneys Team

Additional Resources

Explore more of our insights on related topics:

• Resolving Business Compliance Advisory Disputes Effectively
• Resolving DIFC Courts Disputes Effectively
• Resolving ADGM Courts Disputes Effectively
• Resolving Insurance Disputes Effectively